Human rights law is constantly evolving in the process of developing new international and national legal instruments. At the same time, the focus of human rights law doctrine for decades has been more on law-making, when there is a growing need for international human rights activity to move from the establishment of legal standards to the implementation of existing ones. [1] Indeed, the implementation of already existing international human rights norms is of paramount importance. In this light, it seems necessary to study the implementation mechanism of one of the most important international human rights treaties in the UN human rights treaty system – the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

CEDAW is aimed at eradicating all barriers to the full enjoyment by girls and women of their rights and makes clear references to discrimination against women and girls in certain areas and beyond. Embracing the idea of equality, the Convention obliges to take all necessary measures to eliminate discrimination in the civil, political, economic, social and cultural spheres. And a State by becoming a party to CEDAW thereby demonstrates to the international community and national actors its willingness to accept the legal obligation to implement in good faith all the provisions of the “international bill of rights for women” [2]. At the present time, 189 states [3] have committed themselves to promote the appropriate environment for the realisation of women’s human rights and freedoms guaranteed by this international document and to take all necessary measures to eliminate discrimination against women. Meanwhile, the full realisation of the provisions of the Convention is the result of the implementation process, which must be valid and effective.

Prior to the direct analysis of the mechanism of implementation of the Convention, it seems necessary to raise the question whether a generalised study of the mechanism of implementation of the Convention is possible if different legal systems shaped by ideological, cultural and religious specificities directly affect the implementation mechanism in the States parties to the Convention. For example, UNESCO notes that demographic indicators, including population size and growth rates, as well as social, economic and cultural indicators, such as the rate of population below the poverty line, average income, etc., should not be forgotten. [4]

In this meaning, the observation that a dominant national legal culture often serves as a “shield against international legal influence” must also be emphasised. [5] For this reason, references to cultural traditions or religious sensitivities in respect of the Convention most often serve as an obstacle to the full implementation of the values of CEDAW, where certain beliefs are contrary to the proclamation of equality and the strengthening of women’s rights and freedoms. It is certainly also worth reflecting here on whether it is generally possible to establish a coherent system of women’s human rights, taking into account the differences in national legal cultures. However, this issue deserves a separate work, and a great volume of publications already exists on universalism and relativism in the field of human rights, including in the context of Asian, African, Muslim and Western concepts of human rights. [6] Meanwhile, the following should be highlighted. A fundamental strength of establishing a unified framework for women’s rights is the existence of shared values identified through international dialogue. A core component of such dialogue is finding a common language that facilitates understanding and interaction within this system of shared values. Without coherence in this area, the human rights system would not coexist. Different approaches would undoubtedly emerge, but none of them would oblige States to promote universal respect for and realisation of human rights and freedoms across humanity because of the problem of fragmentation.

Meanwhile, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women is designed to apply to all women of the world, creating a universal system of shared values in which national specificities and traditions do not justify continued discrimination against women. As the authors of the CEDAW Commentary state, the Convention is not subject to any particular legal theory, prevailing ideology or dominant cultural and religious belief system, but is based on an overlapping consensus of different moral, cultural and legal approaches. [7] The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women in this sense has also stressed the obligation of States parties to eliminate cultural obstacles to equality [8], and not to rely on culture as an excuse for lack of progress in this matter[9].

Furthermore, it should be recalled that 189 States have chosen to become party to the Bill of Rights for Women, despite the significant traditional characteristics of some States. There are several reasons for such a choice. Firstly, the important contribution of national human rights defenders who seek to empower women and girls and actively resist the cultural justification of harmful practices and any other established norms that negatively affect the lives of women, girls and other more vulnerable groups should be recognised. Secondly, the decision to become a party to an international human rights treaty may be related to the desire of the state to receive the approval of the world community, which positively affects trade relations, tourism, attraction of investments, etc. Thirdly, it is also necessary to note the flexible approach in the implementation system of the Convention, to the detailed study of which after the above analysis it seems possible to proceed. 

The contribution of CEDAW and its implementation system to the international human rights legal system and the actual realisation of women’s rights is truly invaluable. It has encouraged a wide range of international human rights implementation mechanisms to integrate gender analysis into their work. [10] The Convention itself is not a gender-neutral international human rights treaty, but a direct instrument for eliminating all forms of discrimination against women. The Women’s Bill of Rights addressed the most important areas in which there is discrimination against women that does not recognise their dignity and the equal and inalienable rights inherent in all members of the human family. [11] States Parties to the Convention, which number among the highest of all human rights legal instruments, have committed themselves to take all appropriate measures to pursue policies to eliminate direct or indirect discrimination against women in all spheres of life, including those not mentioned explicitly in the Convention. [12]

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women was adopted on 18 December 1979 and, according to Article 27(1) of the Convention, entered into force on 3 September 1981. [13] The Convention formally contains a Preamble and 6 parts allocated to specific articles. Articles 1-6 are contained in Part I, and set out the general obligations of States parties; Part II is outlined in articles 7-9, and relates to public life and civil and political rights; Part III, articles 10-14, covers the area of economic and social rights; Part IV, which consists of articles 15-16, deals with legal status, including in the family; Part V relates to articles 17-22, which in turn contain provisions on the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women; and Part VI, in articles 23-30, sets out the final provisions relating to administrative and social rights. [14] As the authors of the Commentary to the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women note, “the Convention is a groundbreaking human rights treaty,” and much of the innovation is found in the first five articles, which set out the purpose of the Convention and the general obligations of state parties under it. [15]

The purpose of CEDAW is to eliminate all forms of discrimination against women and to achieve equality between men and women. Article 3 of the Convention obliges States to take “all appropriate measures, including legislation, to ensure the full development and advancement of women, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms on a basis of equality with men”. [16] It is worth emphasizing here the unrestricted nature of Article 3 of the Convention in achieving de jure and de facto equality and its focus on encouraging States to take “all appropriate measures” [17].

In Article 2, CEDAW sets out the State’s obligations to eliminate discrimination against women, both through the legislative mechanism of implementation of the provisions of the Convention and through de facto implementation. Among the appropriate measures to implement the policy of eliminating discrimination against women, Article 2 emphasizes the incorporation of the principle of equal rights of men and women into national legislation and the practical realization of this principle; the adoption of legislative and other measures to prohibit discrimination against women, including by repealing or amending existing legislation, in particular criminal laws, eliminating customs and practices that constitute discrimination against women; ensuring the effective protection of women’s rights on an equal basis with men, as well as the prevention of any discriminatory acts, including by public authorities and institutions. [18] Moreover, Article 2, in paragraph (e), outlines the obligations of States parties to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women by any person, organization or enterprise. [19] Paragraph (e) thus highlights the necessity not only to eliminate discrimination at the vertical level, i.e., in relations with the State itself, but also at the horizontal level between individuals, thereby imposing a positive obligation on States parties to protect individuals from violations of their human rights by others.As jurists have noted, this aspect is particularly evident in the fact that the Convention was developed on the basis of the concept of due diligence. [20] Indeed, discrimination in relations with private persons, including in domestic life, poses the most serious threat to women’s full enjoyment of their rights and freedoms. In this regard, it is essential to “modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women”[21], as established in Article 5 of CEDAW.

In Article 4, the Women’s Bill of Rights also refers to States Parties adopting “temporary special measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality between men and women” [22] in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or other fields. CEDAW emphasizes that not all measures taken shall constitute temporary special measures, and States parties must clearly distinguish between temporary special measures and other general measures taken for the advancement of women and girls. [23] Measures to ensure the general conditions for the proclamation of women’s rights are not temporary special measures. [24]

Within the framework of the Articles addressed above, it should also be emphasized Article 24 of CEDAW, which requires States parties to take all necessary measures at the national level to achieve the full realization of the rights recognized by CEDAW. [25] The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women points out the importance of reading Articles 1-5 and Article 24 together, which jointly establish a general scope for the interpretation of all substantive Articles of CEDAW. [26] According to the substantive Articles of CEDAW, in particular Articles 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, States Parties are obliged to take “all appropriate measures” to eliminate discrimination in relevant areas. These Articles cover civil, political, economic and social rights, imposing an obligation to take all necessary measures to “suppress all forms of trafficking in women and exploitation of prostitution of women” (Article 6) [27], to eliminate discrimination in education (Article 10) [28], in employment (Article 11) [29], in healthcare (Article 12) [30], in marriage and family relations (Article 16) [31] and in other areas.

The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women notes that the requirement to take “all appropriate measures” refers not only to the means but also to the actual result, and the State party must be able to justify the appropriateness of the particular means it has chosen and demonstrate whether it will achieve the intended impact and result. [32] Through its wording in the application of “all appropriate measures”, the Convention provides States parties with the flexibility to determine the best means of implementing the provisions of the Bill of Rights for Women. The authors of the CEDAW Commentary note that such approach takes into account the differences between States’ legal systems, stages of development and cultural sensitivities, where a strict framework for interpreting a Convention intended to benefit women in all regions of the world would discourage States from their commitment to implement the instrument in their legal systems. [33]

Interestingly, the formulation of the necessity for CEDAW’s State Parties to take “all appropriate measures” is also found in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [34]. “Аppropriate” in this wording can be seen as a reference to the means available in the resource [35], as, for example, the ICESCR points out in Article 2, framing the obligation to take “all appropriate means” by the definition of taking to the “maximum extent of the resources available” [36]. However, legal scholars have observed that the language of CEDAW is more forceful than that of Article 2 of the ICESCR. [37] Article 2 of CEDAW also requires that measures must be taken “without delay”, which is not mentioned in the ICESCR. Article 2 of CEDAW itself, as discussed above, sets out in sufficient depth the obligations of States Parties with respect to relevant measures, while Article 3 indicates that these measures include, but are not limited to, legislative measures.

Another factor positively influencing the consent of States to accept obligations to implement CEDAW is the possibility of placing reservations. Accordingly, Article 28 of the Convention provides that States may, upon ratification or accession, make a reservation, which may be withdrawn by the State party concerned at any time through notification to the UN Secretary General. [38] Article 28 in part 2, reflecting Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties [39], prohibits reservations that are incompatible with the aims and objectives of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women itself. [40] In this sense, it seems interesting to highlight the following aspect. A number of Islamic States, when accepting obligations under CEDAW, have made reservations and have directly or indirectly invoked their religious law as the basis for their reservations. [41] This subject has attracted the attention of human rights scholars. For example, Professor Amira el-Azhari Sonbol, a specialist in Islamic law, has dedicated one of her works to analyzing the contradictions between Islamic law as presented in the Qur’an and the rationales used by Muslim states to justify their reservations to CEDAW. [42]

In order to monitor the implementation of CEDAW, the Convention in Article 17 instituted the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, consisting of 23 experts of “high moral standing and competence in the field covered by the Convention” elected by States Parties from their nationals, yet to serve in their personal capacity. [43] In selecting experts, efforts are also made to maintain fairness in terms of legal systems, geography, and types of civilization. [44]

The Committee is assigned a number of functions. First, it considers and examines States’ reports on the legislative, judicial, administrative and other measures taken to implement the Convention, as well as on the results of the relevant measures; the submission of such reports every four years is also an obligation of States parties. [45] Each report serves as a platform for subsequent constructive dialogue between the State Party and the Committee. The Committee’s views are expressed in CEDAW Concluding Observations, where the Committee guides a particular State Party in identifying specific areas in need of reform in the spirit of the Convention. Second, CEDAW annually reports about its activities to the UN General Assembly through the Economic and Social Council, submitting recommendations of a general nature based on the analysis of State party reports. [46] The Committee’s General Recommendations are addressed to CEDAW’s States Parties summarizing the practice of application and interpretation of the Convention, as defined in the Committee’s own Rules of Procedure. [47] The Committee’s General Recommendations have been criticized for providing only basic guidance. [48] In this sense, it is important to emphasize the difference between the Committee’s Concluding Observations under the first identified function and the General Recommendations under the second one. The General Recommendations, by their nature, cover a broader range of recommendations of a general character relevant to a wide range of States Parties, while the Concluding Observations are tailored to the specific issues raised in each State Party’s report and contain concrete suggestions on practical measures to address obstacles to progress in implementing the Convention. It should be acknowledged that the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has developed a significant volume of interpretive material to guide States parties and other actors in understanding the obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, as well as to direct them on the most effective ways to implement the Convention.

CEDAW’s ability to make a fundamental contribution to the protection of women’s rights was strengthened by the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which entered into force on December 22, 2000. [49] This instrument has significantly expanded the competence of the Committee in two ways. First, the Optional Protocol introduces a procedure for the submission of complaints, allowing both individuals and groups to submit communications reporting that they have been victims of violations of the Convention by States parties. [50] This procedure provides women with an alternative to national justice, but it should be noted that consideration of a communication can often take several years due to the Committee’s own workload. Lawyers and legal scholars have pointed out that the procedure for individual communications could potentially stimulate governments to develop more effective national mechanisms for the protection of women’s rights [51], as the State would aim to avoid “the shameful procedure of submitting to decisions of international justice bodies that find a violation of international legal obligations” [52]. Second, the Optional Protocol to CEDAW also allows the Committee to conduct investigations upon receipt of credible information indicating serious or systematic violations of the rights enshrined in the Convention. [53] Such a procedure is intended to complement individual communications, as many women are unable or unwilling to submit individual complaints due to surrounding social pressures or lack of knowledge of the procedure itself. [54] Once the investigation is completed, the Committee addresses its observations to the State party concerned. [55] Notably, legal scholars recognize these investigations as successful and define the reports resulting from such investigations as informative and providing clear recommendations for improving conditions in the State with respect to a particular issue. Notably, the Optional Protocol contains a provision that States may not recognise the competence of the Committee’s investigation procedure and therefore out of 114 States parties to the Optional Protocol to CEDAW, 4 States have abstained from consenting to the investigation procedure. [56]

According to the information presented above, it can be concluded that the Committee plays an important role in ensuring the full implementation of the Convention. However, it is necessary to note that CEDAW, like all treaty bodies monitoring the implementation of UN human rights treaties, does not have the power to enforce its recommendations. Nevertheless, its competence to receive individual complaints and to issue recommendations in response to violations committed by States parties is significant, as this procedure establishes a valuable instrument for women to defend their rights and freedoms at the international level. This procedure also permits the Committee’s opinion to be determined in response to the individual circumstances of a case, contributing to a better understanding of CEDAW.

Non-governmental organizations also make a significant contribution in determining and signalling the actual level of implementation of CEDAW in a State party. NGOs participate in the preparation of the Committee’s recommendations and statements, providing academic analyses and background information, assisting women whose rights have been violated in submitting their complaints to the CEDAW for consideration. [57] In addition, non-governmental organisations contribute to the above-mentioned investigation procedure, including by providing the Committee with credible information indicating serious or systematic violations of the rights enshrined in the Convention. NGOs play an essential role in raising public awareness and promoting change at the local level. [58]

The status of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in national legal systems, in particular the ability of national courts to directly apply the provisions of CEDAW (de facto implementation), depends on the constitutional framework of each State party, namely the status of international treaties within the national legal system [59]. An important factor influencing the status of international treaties is the prevailing concept of the relationship between international and national law. It is necessary to take into account as well the concept of self-executability of CEDAW, which provides for the ability of effective de facto implementation of CEDAW through direct application of CEDAW norms by national courts. The case of Ms Longwe v. Intercontinental Hotel [60] before the Supreme Court of Zambia is an example of such an application. According to the facts of the case, Ms Longwe was not allowed to enter the Intercontinental Hotel due to the hotel’s policy of not allowing “unaccompanied women”, i.e. women without men. Although representatives of the Intercontinental Hotel pointed to the absence of any Zambian legislation enacted in the vein of CEDAW, the Supreme Court of Zambia referred to Zambia’s ratification of the Convention, which means that the State considers itself bound by its provisions. On this basis, the Supreme Court found a violation of Ms Longwe’s rights. [61]

With regard to the constitutional mechanism for the implementation of the CEDAW provisions, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women in General Recommendation 28 urged States parties where the Convention is not automatically part of domestic law to make CEDAW part of the domestic legal system through an appropriate procedure. [62] In this sense, the Committee has emphasised that only in those States “where the Convention is automatically or through an appropriate incorporation procedure made part of the domestic legal system” can be realised “greater protection of women’s rights to non-discrimination and equality in all spheres of life and throughout their lives, as enshrined in the Convention”. [63]

In the context of imprecision of the wording of many provisions of CEDAW, as of other international human rights treaties, it is worth highlighting the treaty bodies’ model of a tiered obligation: to respect, to protect and to promote proclaimed rights. [64] Accordingly, CEDAW has emphasised this triad in several of its General Recommendations, including General Recommendations 25 [65] and 28 [66].

The following conclusion should be drawn. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women is recognised as a universal instrument that obliges States parties to respect, to protect and to promote the actual realisation of women’s rights and freedoms without justification by ideological, cultural and religious specificities of practices that violate women’s rights. States that have become parties to CEDAW have agreed to be bound by the provisions of the Convention. This activates the mechanism of implementation of the norms of the Convention, which constitutes a multistructured process at both the international and national levels. State parties are obliged under Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 to take “all appropriate measures” in good faith, and under Article 24 “all necessary measures” to eliminate discrimination not only in the areas explicitly mentioned in CEDAW, but in all areas of a woman’s life due to the comprehensive nature of the elimination of discrimination. Respecting the fundamental principle of pacta sunt servanda, States commit themselves to take appropriate comprehensive measures in the three main directions set out in Articles 1-5 and 24. [67] The first commitment is to ensure that no discrimination against women, direct or indirect, takes place in the legislation of the State party and that women are effectively protected from discrimination. The second commitment is to promote the actual advancement of women through effective comprehensive policies and programmes. The third commitment is to promote gender equality in both the public and private spheres of life, and to contribute to the destruction of gender stereotypes that are rooted in social and cultural patterns of public behaviour that discriminate against women. [68]

The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women is at the centre of the Convention’s implementation system. This independent monitoring body has four main areas of work: first, it reviews reports from States parties on measures undertaken by them to implement CEDAW; second, it makes General Recommendations that broaden understanding of the Convention; third, it considers individual complaints concerning violations by a State party of the rights set out in CEDAW; and fourth, it conducts an investigation procedure upon receiving credible information that indicates serious or systematic violations by a State party of rights enshrined in CEDAW. [69]

Hence, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women is an essential tool for promoting the establishment of national laws and the development of public policies in the spirit of CEDAW, as well as for strengthening judicial protection for women at the de facto level of implementation. The Convention highlights the areas where discrimination against women is most visible and where States parties need to pay special attention in the process of realising CEDAW’s own goal of eliminating all forms of discrimination against women, proclaiming gender equality and ensuring women’s full development and advancement.

[1] MUTUA, Makau. Standard Setting in Human Rights: Critique and Prognosis. Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 3, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007. P 548.
[2] The United Nations and the advancement of women, 1945-1996. United Nations blue books series, vol. 6, revised edition. P. 5.
[3] United Nations Treaty Collection. Status of Treaties: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women [online], 2022, [Accessed on 07 of April 2022]. Access from the Internet: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/MTDSG/Volume%20I/Chapter%20IV/IV-8.en.pdf
[4] UNESCO. The right to education: law and policy review guidelines. France, 2014. P.17-18.
[5] HELLUM, Anne; and AASEN, Henriette Sinding. Women’s Human Rights: CEDAW in International, Regional and National Law. Studies on Human Rights Conventions, Cambridge, 2013. P. 630.
[6] ALI, Shaheen Sardar. CEDAW? What’s That? ‘Domesticating’ ‘International’ Women’s Human Rights in Muslim Jurisdictions: Reflections on Pakistan’s Engagement with CEDAW. In: Modern Challenges to Islamic Law, Cambridge University Press, 2016. pp. 184-205.
[7] FREEMAN, A, Marsha; and CHINKIN, Christine; and RUDOLF, Beate. The UN Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against woman. A commentary. Oxford University Press, 2012, 1st edition. P.30.
[8] CEDAW, General Recommendation No. 28 concerning the core obligations of States parties under Article 2 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (2010), UN Doc CEDAW/C/GC/28. Paragraph 5.
[9] Ibid. Paragraph 29.
[10] BRAFSKY, Anne F.; and REID, Denesha; and BALMFORTH, Kathryn. The CEDAW Convention: Its Contribution Today. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting, American Society of International Law, Vol. 94, 2000. P. 198.
[11] Universal Declaration of Human Rights (10 December 1948), adopted by UNGA Resolution 217A (III). Preamble.
[12] CEDAW, General Recommendation No. 28 concerning the core obligations of States parties under Article 2 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (2010), UN Doc CEDAW/C/GC/28. Paragraph 25.
[13] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (entered into force on 3 September 1981), adopted by UNGA Resolution 34/180. Article 27 (1).
[14] FREEMAN, A, Marsha; and CHINKIN, Christine; and RUDOLF, Beate. The UN Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against woman: A commentary. Oxford University Press, 2012, 1st edition. P.8.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (entered into force on 3 September 1981), adopted by UNGA Resolution 34/180. Article 3.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (entered into force on 3 September 1981), adopted by UNGA Resolution 34/180. Article 2.
[19] Ibid. Article 2 (e).
[20] FREEMAN, A, Marsha; and CHINKIN, Christine; and RUDOLF, Beate. The UN Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against woman: A commentary. Oxford University Press, 2012, 1st edition. P.9.
[21] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (entered into force on 3 September 1981), adopted by UNGA Resolution 34/180. Article 5 (a).
[22] Ibid. Article 4 (a).
[23] CEDAW. General recommendation No. 25: Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention(2004), GEC/3733/E. Para 19.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (entered into force on 3 September 1981), adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 34/180. Article 24.
[26] CEDAW. General recommendation No. 25: Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention (2004), GEC/3733/E. Para 5.
[27] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (entered into force on 3 September 1981), adopted by UNGA Resolution 34/180. Article 6.
[28] Ibid. Article 10.
[29] Ibid. Article 11.
[30] Ibid. Article 12.
[31] Ibid. Article 16.
[32] CEDAW, General Recommendation No. 28 on the core obligations of States parties under Article 2 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (2010), UN Doc CEDAW/C/GC/28. Para. 23.
[33] FREEMAN, A, Marsha; and CHINKIN, Christine; and RUDOLF, Beate. The UN Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against woman: A commentary. Oxford University Press, 2012, 1st edition. P.16.
[34] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (entered into force on 3 January 1976), adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 2200 A (XXI). Article 2.
[35] FREEMAN, A, Marsha; and CHINKIN, Christine; and RUDOLF, Beate. The UN Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against woman: A commentary. Oxford University Press, 2012, 1st edition. P.16.
[36] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (entered into force on 3 January 1976), adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 2200 A (XXI). Article 2.
[37] FREEMAN, A, Marsha; and CHINKIN, Christine; and RUDOLF, Beate. The UN Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against woman: A commentary. Oxford University Press, 2012, 1st edition. P.16.
[38] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (entered into force on 3 September 1981), adopted by UNGA Resolution 34/180. Article 28 (1) and (3).
[39] Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (on 23 May 1969) A/CONF.39/11/Add.2. Article 19 (c).  
[40] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (entered into force on 3 September 1981), adopted by UNGA Resolution 34/180. Article 28 (2).
[41] FREEMAN, A, Marsha; and CHINKIN, Christine; and RUDOLF, Beate. The UN Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against woman. A commentary. Oxford University Press, 2012, 1st edition. P.30.
[42] SONBOL, Amira el-Azhary. A Response to Muslim Countries’ Reservations Against Full Implementation of CEDAW. Journal of Women of the Middle East and the Islamic World, N 8, 2010. pp. 348–367.
[43] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (entered into force on 3 September 1981), adopted by UNGA Resolution 34/180. Article 17(1).
[44] Ibid. Article 17(1).
[45] Ibid. Article 18.
[46] Ibid. Article 21(1).
[47] CEDAW, Rules of Procedure of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (1995), A/56/38 (SUPP). Rule 52.
[48] CAMBELL, Meghan. Women, Poverty, Equality: The Role of CEDAW. Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2018. P.211-212.
[49] Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (6 October 1999), adopted by UNGA resolution 54/4.
[50] Ibid. Article 2.
[51] MULLINS, Laurent Bock. CEDAW: The Challenges of Enshrining Women’s Equality in International Law. In: Public Integrity, 2017. P. 3.
[52] ULYASHINA, L.V. International legal standards in the field of human rights and their implementation. Theory and practice. Vilnius, 2013. P.229.
[53] Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (6 October 1999), adopted by UN General Assembly resolution 54/4. Article 8 (1).
[54] MULLINS, Laurent Bock. CEDAW: The Challenges of Enshrining Women’s Equality in International Law. In: Public Integrity, 2017. P. 4.
[55] Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (6 October 1999), adopted by UNGA resolution 54/4. Article 8 (3).
[56] United Nations Treaty Bodies Database. Acceptance of the inquiry procedure under the Optional protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women [online], 2022, [Accessed on 2 of April 2022]. Access from the Internet: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx?Treaty=CEDAW&Lang=en
[57] MULLINS, Laurent Bock. CEDAW: The Challenges of Enshrining Women’s Equality in International Law. In: Public Integrity, 2017. P. 7.
[58] Ibid.
[59] CEDAW, General Recommendation No. 28 concerning the core obligations of States parties under Article 2 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (2010), UN Doc CEDAW/C/GC/28. Para. 31.
[60] Zambia High Court, Sara H Longwe vs Intercontinental Hotels, 1992/HP/765.
[61] VASHKEVICH, Alexander; and TUGUSHI, Georgy; and SALAEV, Azamat. Application of the Provisions of the UN Convention on Human Rights in Decisions of the Courts of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Collection of Materials of a Practical Seminar. Tashkent, 2020. P. 156.
[62] CEDAW, General Recommendation No. 28 on the Core Obligations of States Parties under Article 2 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (2010), UN Doc CEDAW/C/GC/28. P. 31.
[63] Ibid.
[64] FREEMAN, A, Marsha; and CHINKIN, Christine; and RUDOLF, Beate. The UN Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against woman: A commentary. Oxford University Press, 2012, 1st edition. P.19.
[65] CEDAW, General recommendation No. 25: Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention (2004), GEC/3733/E. Para 4.
[66] CEDAW, General Recommendation No. 28 concerning the core obligations of States parties under Article 2 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (2010), UN Doc CEDAW/C/GC/28. Para. 9.
[67] CEDAW, General recommendation No. 25: Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention (2004), GEC/3733/E. Para 6.
[68] Ibid. Para 7.
[69] VASHKEVICH, A.E. Practice of application by courts of the norms of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), In: Application of the provisions of the UN Convention on Human Rights in decisions of the courts of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Collection of materials from a practical seminar. Tashkent, 2020. P.153.